Thanks for all the clarifications. I think I get it. I hope I don't sound too clueless, but if I could get some more hand holding that would be wonderful.

"I swing my sword at his mid section" is a preferred player statement because it gives us a concrete, vivid action without necessarily including a consequence.

"I cut him in half " is frowned upon because is includes a consequence that might not necessarily happen.

Actually, in IAWA, it's the other way around.

"I cut him in half," is the preferred player statement.But everyone needs to understand that any player statement becomes nothing more than Intent, as soon as it enters a conflict.And also that the player making the statement knows that it probably won't happen (since it can always be dialled back to exhaustion or injury), it just provides a framework for the negotiation that occurs to decide how the conflict panned out.So when you make a statement of action, you are stating what will happen, but only if nothing interferes. And you know full well that someone will interfere - which is in fact, you want that to happen.

Quote

"Mehka, Playing on her inflamed lust, seduces Tajie and brings her to bed with him" would appear to be in the frowned upon category of statements because we have a stated consequence.

So, following on from above, this is not in any way a frowned upon statement. It's encoureaged, because it gives Tajie's player something to react to and oppose.The rules explicitly state that the answerer may interrupt the statement of intent, so Tajie's player, if she blocks Mehka's attack, can laugh off that approach (if she rolls well enough) and take the opportunity to get some advantage over Mehka.

Quote

Basically, it should be hard, if not impossible, to use reason to get a fool to do anything. . If someone wants to play a fool, then we shouldn't let some game mechanic mind control that character out of her nature.

While I don't agree with that statement, that doesn't matter. Remember, in IAWA, you can never force another player or character to do anything at all - the loser can always default to exhaustion or injury.

I cut him in half is the preferred player statement. - I think that takes a bit firmer stance on "the right way to play" than necessary. If everyone is cool with statements being "what might happen" and with "redaction" then it's fine, and this is apparently Vincent's preferred playing style. However, I get the sense in the IIEE/unclear thread that groups are endorsed as being free to find their own playing style on this point and free to limit statements for actions diced over to be what isn't redactable.

I admit I've only played one game, through 2 chapters, so far, but we used the "no redaction" approach and had great fun, using statements that included "tip-offs" of "where we hoped that was going" without saying it had gone there. Seeing actions like "The Keshti feign retreat hoping to draw the Aquilonian cavlary into close combat." rather than "The Keshti feign retreat drawing the Aquilonian cavalry into close combat", followed by "The spiked pits the Keshti prepared beforehand threaten to make the Aquilonian withdrawal a disaster" etc.

A slight grammatical sense of accuracy can keep the "cut in half" parts of statements without confusing what is being diced over.

As long as everybody understands that "I chop you in half" really means "my character chops yours across the middle as hard as she can," which everybody should understand because that's how the rules work, you're free to say it either way.

Whether you personally prefer to say "I chop you in half" (like I do) or "my character chops yours across the middle as hard as she can" is up to you, I've got no opinions about that.